A reader complained some days ago that he opened this newspaper to read something pungent editorially about the war on Iraq and was most disappointed to find wishy-washy fence-sitting "lets all hope it is over as soon as possible" platitudes instead. Well, you can't please everyone. But given the lack of local news of substance on which to comment, we thought we might, just for once, address our critics.
Our staff is comprised of people from at least six different nations, and at least half of them are Westerners. It would be interesting to say that debate over the war has raged in our newsroom, but that would not be the case: almost everyone is against it, the US citizens, by the way, most of all. But this is on a personal level. What this newspaper has to think about is not the ideals or prejudices of its own editorial staff but the specific interests of Taiwan in this conflict.
Let us then start with the basics. Taiwan is threatened by Chinese irredentism. It is difficult for the country to defend itself without outside help, and this includes the provision of weapons that Taiwan cannot develop itself and practical military help in the event of an attack. The only country which is likely to come to Taiwan's aid in the event of an attack by China is the US. These are the plain facts, wherever you might stand on the Iraq war or any other of the great geo-political questions of our time. Taiwan cannot stand alone against the huge threat across the Taiwan Strait. There is only one country that is prepared to give it even the weakest of security commitments. That is the US.
Fashionable criticisms of US unilateralism are, therefore, of no interest to Taiwan. Here, the kind of multilateralism espoused in Europe means no more than a large economic area incapable of projecting military power, so in thrall to China's business opportunities that none of its member nations dare grant President Chen Shui-bian (
Closer to Taiwan's concerns perhaps is the talk of the US' trashing of international law in pursuing its attack on Iraq. After all, isn't Taiwan's claim to be treated in the world as the nation it plainly is based on the right of self-determination granted by the UN Charter? Anything that undermines the UN and its charter, some argue, should therefore be viewed as detrimental to Taiwan. The short answer to this is that if the UN lived up to its ideals Taiwan would be a member; that it isn't raises obvious questions about the UN.
So let us be blunt about Taiwan's position. Whatever its chattering classes, which of course include ourselves, might think privately about the war in Iraq, those who want to see this island maintain its independence -- who tend to be of a "liberal internationalist" rather than Chinese nationalist persuasion -- would be ill-advised to bite the hand that defends them.
There are legitimate worries that might be discussed. If the war or its aftermath go badly or simply become too expensive, the US might lose its taste for intervention leaving Taiwan out on a limb. There will be a world after US President George W. Bush leaves office. Whether it is one in which the American people and their government continue to pursue the values that this president -- once ironically thought to be ideology-free -- seek to promote, or one in which the Bush adventure is regarded as a regrettable aberration not to be repeated, is something that will have huge repercussions on Taiwan. That is something we might usefully think about. On the war itself, as Wittgenstein said: "when one cannot speak, one must be silent."
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS